Australian Politics

ABC reporters canot see their own Leftist bias

It was not so long ago that prominent ABC journalist Fran Kelly declared: “What I am, really am, is an activist.” The comment was reported by Tim Elliott in The Sydney Morning Herald on March 13, 2012. In recent times, newly appointed ABC chair Kim Williams has told staff at the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster that if they want to be activists, they should get another job.

So it came as no surprise that when Kelly delivered the ABC’s 2024 Andrew Olle Media Lecture in Sydney on October 18 there was no praise for journalists of the activist genre. But there was much flattery of her current and former colleagues, along with a warning about misinformation and disinformation.

What was missing in the long dinner speech was evidence to support much of the argument. Early on, Kelly declared that she and her colleagues always sought to be objective, accurate, balanced and empathetic. And then went on to accuse ABC critics of coming to “hate the national broadcaster”.

Her evidence? Well, there was none. Except for a reference to a male neighbour who once located her lost dog but, later on, verbally abused her and her employer. Kelly stated “he doesn’t like the ABC”. Probably not. But there is no discussion as to whether the badly behaving neighbour might be suffering from a mental illness.

It was not long before Kelly was warning that “truth can be manipulated” and that “people in power have always known it; that facts can be manipulated”. She then went on to make this comment: “It seems we’ve lost any notion of ‘agreed facts’ as a baseline for civilised debate.”

This is a significant misreading of democracies. The success of democracy is that it is possible to manage disagreement in a peaceful manner. It is rare indeed that in Australia there have been instances of “agreed facts” on most contentious issues.

I was not present at the 2024 Andrew Olle Lecture. But it would be surprising if a room full of journalists would concur with the proposition that we can all agree about facts. Kelly went on to specifically condemn misinformation and disinformation. The problem is that what is misinformation to, say, Kelly may be the truth to someone else.

Kelly told her audience: “It is one year since the referendum that proved to be a case study of the widening fissures in our society and the distorting impact misinformation and disinformation can have on our democratic processes.” But was it? Kelly cites the analysis by the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods of the voice to parliament referendum.

The ANU study found “the data suggests that Australians voted no because they didn’t want division and remain sceptical of rights for some Australians that are not held by others”. The majority agreed that Indigenous Australians suffer levels of disadvantage and require extra government assistance. But “they did not see the voice model put to them as the right approach to remedy that disadvantage”.

The 40 per cent of Australians who voted yes would disagree with this position. Fair enough. But it is not, in itself, a product of misinformation or ill-will. Moreover, one of the most prominent leaders of the No case was Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, an Indigenous woman.

The problem Kelly faces in analysing contemporary Australian politics is that she has worked in a conservative-free zone for more than three decades and finds it hard to understand why others would disagree with her “progressive” positions. Sky News presenters during the voice debate included Chris Kenny (a Yes advocate) and Peta Credlin (a No advocate). I am not aware of any ABC presenter who indicated support for the No cause.

What was also missing from Kelly’s address was any sense of self-awareness. The problem with the ABC, which Kelly seems to regard as beyond reproach, is not such emerging cliches as misinformation and disinformation but, rather, factual error along with a lack of viewpoint diversity.

Kelly, an ABC staff member, used a high-profile public lecture to condemn the misinformation of others – but not that of the ABC. Some examples illustrate the point:

* The ABC led the media pile-on against the late Cardinal George Pell from 2017. The ABC’s prosecutor-in-chief was Louise Milligan who was open about the fact that her book, Cardinal, was written “from the complainants’ point of view”. In time, the only convictions of Pell for historical child sexual abuse were quashed by a unanimous judgment of the High Court.

* In 2018, ABC reporter Sarah Ferguson presented a three-part Four Corners series titled “Trump/Russia”. It was advertised as “the story of the century – the election of US president (Donald) Trump and his ties to Russia”. In time, the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory was correctly dismantled by reports by John Durham and Robert Mueller.

* In March 2021, the ABC ran a three-part program titled “Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire”, presented by Caro Meldrum-Hanna and Patrick Begley. The “big story” was that former NSW premier Neville Wran was somehow involved in the 1979 Luna Park fire that killed six children and one parent. This theory has been totally discredited by Milton Cockburn in The Australian on July 26 this year and in his book, The Assassination of Neville Wran (Connor Court). The ABC withdrew the program.

* And then there’s Kelly herself. On October 4, she introduced the ABC Saturday Extra program with the following claim: “Since the Hamas attacks (of October 7 last year) Israel has exacted devastating revenge; its forces have killed more than 40,000 Palestinians with relentless bombing of the Gaza Strip.”

Kelly did not state that the 40,000 figure was calculated by Hamas health authorities – or that it is estimated that some 20,000 Hamas fighters have been killed by Israel (who are counted in the 40,000 figure).

There was not one word of criticism of the ABC in Kelly’s lecture. It would seem that to Kelly, only those with whom she disagrees are into misinformation and disinformation. However, it would be difficult to come to “agreed facts” on this.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/abc-lacks-diversity-and-conservative-voices-thats-a-fact/news-story/c99de52b92876ed8d9bcf39de2397d65

*****************************************************

Increasing realism on housing supply

Amid the brutish financial waterboarding of young Australians with extortionist home-price inflation, the slow drip of independent research and advocacy has led to breakthroughs in the conversation about housing policy.

Sensible proposals about increasing housing supply are seeing the light of day and leaders, such as NSW Premier Chris Minns, are finding courage to offer solutions beyond those that simply pump up demand, rents and home values. Following a housing statement last year setting out a decade-long plan to build 800,000 homes, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan is on a roll.

In the past week, Allan has announced a 12-month cut to stamp duty for all off-the-plan units, townhouses and apartments; a 10-year greenfields land release plan to support greater housing supply across greater Melbourne; the introduction of the state’s Building and Plumbing Commission; and further consideration of making it easier, cheaper and faster to subdivide blocks of land for homes.

A senior Victorian Labor figure audaciously tells Inquirer the Suburban Rail Loop boondoggle, estimated to cost a gazillion dollars (no one really knows), is actually a housing play, putting thousands of homes above metro stations rather than adding to the city’s sprawl.

But Allan’s most controversial move to ease the housing crisis was to make public last Sunday the first 25 locations for 50 “train and tram zone activity centres” for new homes in developments reportedly up to 20 storeys near public transport across Melbourne, primarily located in inner-east and southeast suburbs.

High-vis federal Victorian teal MPs immediately flipped the lollipop sign to STOP for what they saw was the Premier’s lack of consultation. On Wednesday, their NSW crossbench colleague Allegra Spender was more welcoming about what planners call “densification”. “I support housing of all different shapes and sizes, but it has to work for the community,” she told the National Press Club.

It’s true we’re in the slippery realm of “announceables” and the wiles of messaging merchants for a government about to clock up 10 years in office. Builders, however, are cautiously welcoming the changes. The Housing Industry Association’s executive director (Victoria), Keith Ryan, said on Thursday the land release plan was an important step, “but not the full answer” to greater supply.

“Alongside this, industry needs all areas of policy working together to support greater housing supply and put downwards pressures on housing affordability,” Ryan said. “The industry continues to face a number of challenges in boosting housing supply, including the costs and time associated with delivering new housing, slow and restrictive planning approvals, and the continuing raft of cascading regulatory changes.”

Just over a week ago at the University of Sydney, opposition Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor sketched out the principles that would guide the Coalition’s economic policies; in truth, it was recital of “back to basics” platitudes, post-it notes and dot points, rather than fresh policies written in ink and cohering into a winning platform.

Nevertheless, Taylor declared housing the nation’s most important economic challenge. Like other politicians and commentators, he conceded “there is no silver bullet” in this area. “It requires every lever to be pulled,” he said.

Taylor said the Coalition’s focus would be to allow withdrawals from superannuation for the purchase of a first home; managing budgets to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates; and ensuring there is enough supply (and aligning population growth with available housing).

Superannuation withdrawal, however, is an entry-level demand booster. Best let super be super. During the pandemic, the Morrison government’s oversubscribed HomeBuilder scheme added to the industry’s miseries, which include a lack of skilled trades workers, exorbitant wage and materials costs, difficulties in accessing sites, and company collapses.

In its latest Business Outlook, Deloitte Access Economics says HomeBuilder “distorted demand by inducing a ‘bring forward’ of activity that otherwise would have taken place later (or not at all), further straining a sector already under pressure”.

Although construction costs are no longer accelerating, they’re not declining either. According to the HIA, the median price of a residential lot reached an all-time high of $351,044 in the June quarter, due to acute shortages and rising tax imposts. Annual building block inflation is 6 per cent.

With very little capacity to begin new projects and permanently higher costs, Deloitte partner Stephen Smith says the sector will be both unwilling and unable to lift supply unless property prices also rise. “That is, housing affordability will get worse before it has a hope of getting better,” he says.

Deloitte has revised down its forecast of residential activity. Fewer than one million new dwellings are now expected to be built over the next five years, well below the federal government’s National Housing Accord target of 1.2 million homes by 2029.

Labor’s priority is social and affordable housing, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, but its supply initiatives go beyond industry incapacity. There’s been legislative delay on the Help to Buy plan, Greens grandstanding on loopy ideas like rent freezes, and a crowding out of activity from state “Big Builds” on roads and rail.

A week ago, Peter Dutton put theoretical cash down, announcing a Coalition government would set up a $5bn “use it or lose it” fund of grants and concessional loans to jump start infrastructure development, such as water, power, roads and sewerage, with the aim of building 500,000 homes in new greenfield locations. It was welcomed by the property lobby and economists as a supply booster, although there are qualms about a 10-year freeze on changes to the National Construction Code to reduce unnecessary “red tape”.

Labor, too, is throwing in incentives for housing infrastructure and to spur state governments to lift their work rates. But as Geoff Chambers revealed this week, its $1.5bn Housing Support Program is being funnelled into marginal and winnable seats ahead of a federal poll due next year.

This week the Business Council of Australia provided evidentiary ballast and corporate impetus through the It’s Time to Say Yes to Housing report. It’s the BCA’s major contribution in this area, seemingly driven by the promise of a productivity dividend, a desire for intergenerational equity and getting more homes built in areas where people want to live.

The key takeaway is a $10bn national reform fund, a variation on the landmark National Competition Policy. Those measures were a down payment on reforms a generation ago across three tiers of government and provided a boost to our material living standards. The Productivity Commission estimated a 2.5 per cent permanent increase in the size of our economy from the competition reforms, or around $5000 per household.

The BCA argues a reform fund could incentivise states to rezone land for housing in areas of demand and lead to faster and more efficient approval processes. As well, it calls for performance management of local councils to crack the whip on approvals, as well as new intervention and approvals powers for state governments.

Other measures are aimed at raising workers’ skills, better skilled migration visa settings and interstate mobility for tradies, lowering taxes and charges, and tackling criminal behaviour on building sites, as well as new ways to consult with communities and manage heritage issues.

BCA chief executive Bran Black backs many of the latest measures. Fixing the housing crisis “means putting hard but important policy changes on the table; the scale of the task before us remains immense, and so we need every good reform on the table if we’re to hit our targets,” he says. Black says stamp duty is “a horrible tax that stops Australians getting into a home” and is urging Canberra to help the states replace it with a land tax.

But in NSW, the Minns government reversed the Coalition’s policy that offered home buyers the choice of paying stamp duty or an annual property tax, while waiving stamp duty paid by first-home buyers on properties worth up to $800,000. The ACT has slowly weaned itself off stamp duty, while lifting land taxes; receipts for the former continued to climb and the move is often viewed as a tax grab.

Federal Housing Minister Clare O’Neil declares stamp duty is a bad tax and welcomed moves that states and territories have made to wind it back or to remove it altogether. Yet the property levies raise around $130bn a year and even skint state treasurers won’t switch to “forever” land taxes.

At the conclusion of an official mission to Australia this month, International Monetary Fund staff said addressing our housing affordability challenges “requires a holistic approach to tackle the continued supply shortfall”.

“A comprehensive strategy is essential, focusing on increasing construction worker supply, relaxing zoning and planning restrictions, supporting the built-to-rent sector, expanding public and affordable housing, and re-evaluating property taxes (including tax concessions to property investors) and stamp duty to promote efficient land use,” the IMF said.

Finally, some of those elements are falling into place; the NIMBYs may be in retreat and the Greens’ harebrained ideas exposed. Mainstream politicians and mature homeowners may soon realise that the supply science is in and accept that torturing young Australians on housing affordability can only come back to bite us all.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/politicians-are-finally-aiming-high-to-boost-housing-supply/news-story/ebcd0262a0a18837f73937733161c502

*********************************************************

Big Tech puts final nail in ALP’s anti-nuclear coffin

Who do you think would be smarter and more experienced in matters of energy and economics, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, or lifelong ALP operatives Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese? How would the smarts of our Prime Minister and his Climate and Energy Minister shape up against Google chief executive Sundar Pichai or Oracle chairman and co-founder Larry Ellison?

These are pertinent questions given the four tech companies have recently announced decisions to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in nuclear energy, while Albanese and Bowen claim nuclear power does not stack up. Not everyone can be right; one side of the argument must be wrong.

If Gates, Bezos, Pichai and Ellison are wrong, their companies will be devalued and shareholders will revolt. If Albanese and Bowen are wrong, we will weaken our country in economic, technological and social terms for decades to come.

If you argue nuclear energy is uneconomic then the United States, UK, France, Finland, South Korea, UAE, China, Taiwan, Russia, India, Canada, Pakistan, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, Spain and others must have it wrong. You contend that only Australia has it right with a nuclear-energy ban.

Last year, 22 countries, including our AUKUS partners the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear energy output by 2050. Google has announced a deal with Kairos Power to deploy several small modular reactors (SMRs) to power AI data centres, with the first reactor to be in place within six years; Amazon announced a $US500m ($750m) deal for SMRs; Microsoft has underwritten the reopening of a reactor at the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania; and Oracle is building a data centre requiring a gigawatt of power supplied by three small reactors.

Yet here in Australia Albanese and Bowen talk about becoming a “green energy superpower” as they ignore uncapped renewable costs and regional battles against solar, wind and transmission projects.

All the while, our descent from a plentiful cheap energy economy to an electricity basket case continues.

This is a grand exercise in national self-harm driven by climate catastrophism and ideological zeal. Labor seems incapable of reconsidering it.

This week we heard two astonishing admissions from the Australian Energy Market Operator – one of the bodies the Albanese government uses to buttress claims its renewables-plus-storage plan will lead to cheaper prices. In a parliamentary hearing, AEMO chief executive Daniel Westerman was asked by LNP senator Matt Canavan whether he could “guarantee” current government policy would deliver lower prices. “I can’t guarantee that, no,” Westerman replied.

AEMO limits its goal to delivering the “lowest-cost path” to the government’s emissions reduction targets. Even then, its calculations are confined by the government’s chosen model.

The Integrated System Plan is AEMO’s road map for the electricity grid, and Albanese and Bowen rely on it to promise lower prices. Renewables proponents also use the GenCost report (where AEMO and the CSIRO calculate comparative generation costs) to argue renewables are the cheapest form of energy, but critics point to major flaws in both reports.

“Since coal plants are not considered a long-term option because of emissions targets, and nuclear energy is off the table because of federal legislation, the ISP has effectively omitted the modelling of the only credible alternatives to renewables, storage and gas that could be used as a baseline for comparison,” declares Aidan Morrison, director of energy research at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Morrison says the GenCost conclusions are “incorrect and misleading” and he pinpoints holes in the ISP and GenCost costings because they fail to include the full expense of transmission, storage, household solar and batteries, subsidies to keep coal generators going, and Snowy 2.0.

Governments and their authorities are underestimating the cost of their renewables-plus-storage model by hundreds of millions of dollars. And in assessing the costs of nuclear they fail to factor in the 75+ years of reactor lifespan compared to 15 or 20 years for renewables kit.

At this week’s hearing, Westerman also revealed AEMO does not even calculate the electricity cost to consumers. “We don’t model power prices,” he said.

This is scandalous. Despite promises of cheaper power (remember the $275 pledge?) there is no analysis from the market operator to either confirm the government’s undertakings or ensure the country is adopting the best option.

The facade is crumbling. It has long been clear to anyone prepared to examine the facts that the renewables-plus-storage model is not only expensive but might not even be possible – no comparable country has even tried it.

Now we see the advice and modelling cited by government is so deeply flawed that it exposes Bowen and Albanese as frauds. Voters have been told that AEMO and the CSIRO have considered various generation and distribution models to arrive at a system to deliver reliable, low-emissions power at the cheapest cost to consumers – but nothing of the kind has occurred.

Albanese and Bowen have been flying blind. And the teals, the Greens and most of the media have happily gone along for the ride.

We will all wear the consequences. This world-first renewable energy experiment risks our money and economic future – the government gets to grandstand, but consumers invariably will pay.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/big-tech-puts-final-nail-in-alps-antinuclear-coffin/news-story/0ee24943e4204c0b049c63ee043cc468

*************************************************

Politically correct NSW prosectuor under fire from judges

The growing rift between the NSW judiciary and the state’s top prosecutor has been dramatically laid bare with a senior judge alleging DPP Sally Dowling SC tried to “exert influence” over the judiciary and engaged in “ethically questionable” behaviour.

In what is understood to be the first recorded instance of a NSW judge filing a formal complaint against the state’s chief prosecutor, Judge Wass claims Ms Dowling possibly defamed, bullied and intimidated her when issuing a media statement saying her private comments to chief judge Sarah Huggett were “entirely appropriate”.

The extraordinary complaint marks an inflection point in a feud between the state’s judiciary and prosecution office, in which some judges have accused Ms Dowling of running baseless sexual assault cases that have no hope of securing a conviction.

The growing tension has culminated in three official complaints being made by Ms Dowling against sitting judges – one that was upheld, a second that was partially upheld and a third with an outcome unknown.

An Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions spokesperson said Ms Dowling had formally responded to Judge Wass’s complaint, and it would be inappropriate to comment further.

NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley has refused to become publicly involved in the standoff despite demands from MPs that he take urgent action to protect the integrity of the state’s justice system.

The simmering conflict erupted again when Ms Dowling raised concerns with the Chief Judge about what she believed to be an “emerging practice” under which Judge Wass directed witnesses to “produce their mobile phones and on occasion their PIN code” when giving evidence.

According to Judge Wass’s complaint, filed on June 28, Ms Dowling told the Chief Judge she believed forcing a witness to hand up their phone “infringed upon the rights of the accused person and the Crown to a fair trial”.

Ms Dowling also told the Chief Judge she would “consider steps she considers to be properly available to her to seek judicial review should further directions of this nature be made”.

But in her complaint, Judge Wass condemns what she viewed as a “threat” in Ms Dowling going over her head to the Chief Judge without the knowledge of the defence and saying she may seek judicial review.

Two of the matters were in the middle of hearings at the time Ms Dowling complained.

“It is evident that the Director has determined that it is appropriate to approach and co-opt the Chief Judge to receive, and presumably act upon, her complaint(s), about the conduct of a judicial officer(s), including when part-heard, without the knowledge of those conducting the litigation and without the need to follow any established protocol,” Judge Wass said.

“By these communications, the Director has attempted to exert influence over the future exercise of my judicial function by untransparent means.”

The complaint comes amid longstanding tension between Ms Dowling and members of the judiciary, some of whom say the ODPP puts accused rapists on trial despite not having enough evidence to secure a conviction.

The NSW Judicial Commission in August upheld a complaint made by Ms Dowling against judge Robert Newlinds, after he had accused her office of making “lazy and perhaps politically expedient” referrals of meritless rape accusations to court.

Judge Peter Whitford is also the subject of a complaint from Ms Dowling, after he accused her office of prosecuting matters “without apparent regard to whether there might be reasonable prospects of securing a conviction”.

The result of the complaint against him is unknown.

Ms Dowling late last year also lodged a complaint against judge Sean Grant after he accused her of the most “blatant judge-shopping” he had seen during his time on the bench.

In answers to supplementary questions to NSW parliament earlier this year, Ms Dowling said the complaint was “upheld in part” and the matter had been “referred to the Chief Judge of the District Court with a recommendation to the Chief Judge that Judge Grant be counselled as to the proper limits of case management in criminal matters and that questions as to the reasonable prospects of prosecution are for the Director of Public Prosecutions and not for a trial judge”.

In her complaint to the Commissioner, Judge Wass said that in no case was the phone direction appealed, and in two of the three cases “both parties agreed to the course adopted, or at least did not demur”.

Judge Wass characterised Ms Dowling’s comments to the Chief Judge as what she considered to be a “knowing and deliberate interference by a member of the executive in a judicial function” and therefore an “improper infringement on the separation of powers”. In her opinion, the complaint was a “clear risk to the administration of justice” and had the “potential to undermine my independence”.

“Such communications are in my view irreconcilable with principles of open justice and an independent, impartial judiciary,” she wrote. “To my knowledge this practice is not sanctioned by the NSW Bar Association, and is ethically questionable, where there is no representative of the defence Bar or the criminal law committee of the Bar Association, nor is it consistent with any protocol or practice note issued by the District Court.”

Judge Wass further complained of a statement issued to The Australian on June 7 in which she said her contact with the Chief Judge was “confidential” and related to a “matter of mutual concern”.

“If the Director’s criticisms and warning to me were not matters of ‘mutual concern’, the comment to the media is also false or misleading, and may arguably be defamatory of me in the sense that it creates a false impression that the criticism was warranted and shared by the Chief Judge,” Judge Wass wrote.

Judge Wass said if communications between Ms Dowling and the Chief Judge occurred regularly, that practice “fundamentally risks the integrity of the justice system and risks bringing the justice system into disrepute by giving the appearance that the Director has a special relationship or has special favour with the Court”.

She asked the Legal Services Commissioner to investigate whether Ms Dowling had breached the bar rules in engaging in the private complaint, including whether her statement to The Australian constituted “bullying” or was “intimidating”.

“I appreciate that these are very serious allegations,” Judge Wass said. “I do not make them lightly. I make them because I consider the independence of the judiciary and the public confidence in our system of justice to be of utmost importance and am of the firm view that it has been materially put at risk by the Director's conduct.”

An ODPP spokesperson said Ms Dowling had “formally responded to a complaint made by Judge Wass to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner”.

“It would be entirely inappropriate to comment further until the matter has been finalised,” the spokesperson said.

One Nation upper house MP Tania Mihailuk said: “With every new revelation, confidence in the Office of the DPP is being eroded. We haven’t seen this level of micromanaging, tumult and controversy through the history of the ODPP.

“What is the Attorney-General going to do?” she said. “He can’t continue to simply brush aside these incidences.”

A spokesperson for Mr Daley said the Attorney-General was unable to comment on complaints, or reported complaints, made about legal practitioners to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner. “Judges operate independently of the executive branch of government. Similarly, the ODPP is a statutory body that operates independently of government,” the spokesperson said. “The Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner is an independent statutory body.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/nsw-dpp-sally-dowling-in-ethically-questionable-behaviour-says-senior-judge-penelope-wass/news-story/a99b87917dc8f7981eeeb0967ce2fb58